In Durrett v. State, 36 S.W.3d 205, 208 (Tex. App.--Houston 14th Dist. 2001, no pet.), none of the witnesses could recall who actually drew the medical blood sample from the defendant and a medical technologist admitted on cross examination that he lacked an independent recollection of testing the blood. See Durrett, 36 S.W.3d at 209-11. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that the beginning and end of the chain of custody were proved by witnesses who testified that a physician requested the blood sample, which was identified as Durrett's at the time it was collected for analysis by an emergency room employee pursuant to hospital policies and procedures, and where the blood sample was promptly sent by pneumatic tube to the hospital laboratory for analysis by a medical technologist. Id. at 210. Because Durrett did not claim there was any tampering with or alteration of the evidence, or suggest that hospital procedures were not followed, proof of the beginning and the end of the chain of custody was sufficient to support admission of the evidence. Id. at 211. The appeals court held that the fact that no witness could recall taking the blood and the fact that another witness gave contradictory testimony on whether he recalled testing Durrett's blood sample, went to the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence. Id.